THE 10 STATEMENTS ON PUBLICATION ETHICS

1) DATA FABRICATIONi. Definition: Making up research findings.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Data fabrication is the prototype form of scientific misconduct. It contaminates the literature and spreads its deleterious effect on medical research since other reports are based on the fabricated data. Therefore, Hippokratia statement on data fabrication is that it is absolutely unethical, totally unacceptable and a reason to impose all the appropriate sanctions to the Authors.iii. Additional Information: All Authors of the submitted manuscript with fabricated data, regardless their level of contribution, are held equally responsible for this scientific misconduct.

2) DATA FALSIFICATIONi. Definition: Manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Data falsification is a form of scientific misconduct, as serious as data fabrication. It contaminates the literature and spreads its deleterious effect on medical research since other reports are based on the fabricated data. Therefore, Hippokratia statement on data falsification is that it is absolutely unethical, totally unacceptable and a reason to impose all the appropriate sanctions to the Authors.iii. Additional Information: All Authors of the submitted manuscript with falsified data, regardless their level of contribution, are held equally responsible for this scientific misconduct.

3) PLAGIARISMi. Definition: When somebody presents the work of others (data, words or theories) as if they were his/her own and without proper acknowledgment.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Plagiarism is a form of serious ethical misconduct. In addition, whilst plagiarism is not a crime, it can involve liability for copyright infringement and may be considered an offence. Adequate referencing is very important to ensure that manuscripts are not plagiarized. Hippokratia statement on plagiarism is that it is absolutely unethical, totally unacceptable and a reason to impose all the appropriate sanctions to the Authors.iii. Additional Information: All Authors of the plagiarized manuscript, regardless their level of contribution, undertake, by the process of submission, full liability for this ethical misconduct.

4) SIMULTANEOUS SUBMISSIONi. Definition: When a manuscript (or substantial sections from a manuscript) is submitted to a journal when it is already under consideration by another journal.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Simultaneous submission is a form of ethical misconduct. It inappropriately utilizes the most valuable journal resource, the Reviewers. Although it is not a scientific misconduct per se, it shows absolute lack of respect for the time and effort of fellow scientists. As such, Hippokratia statement on simultaneous submission is that it is unethical, unacceptable and a reason to impose the appropriate sanctions.iii. Additional Information: Corresponding Author of the simultaneously submitted manuscript to other journals, besides Hippokratia, is held responsible for this ethical misconduct.

5) DUPLICATE PUBLICATIONi. Definition: When two or more publications, without full cross-referencing, share essentially the same hypotheses, data, discussion points, and conclusions.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Duplicate publication is a form of serious ethical misconduct that aims to increase the Authors’ number of contributions and therefore boost their academic careers. Not only inappropriately utilizes journal resources but it also contaminates the literature with useless (i.e. already presented) information. Hippokratia statement on duplicate publication is that it is unethical, unacceptable and a reason to impose all the appropriate sanctions to the Authors.iii. Additional Information: First, Last and Corresponding Authors of the manuscript submitted with a proven case of duplicate publication are held responsible for this ethical misconduct.

6) REDUNDANT PUBLICATIONi. Definition: When two or more publications involve the inappropriate division of study outcomes into several articles.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Redundant publication (also known as “salami” publication) is a form of ethical misconduct since the act of partitioning of one study into multiple publications does not aim to scientific excellence but to increase the Authors’ number of contributions and therefore boost their academic careers. It creates unnecessary “scientific verbalism”. Hippokratia statement on redundant publication is that it is a form of self-plagiarism, unethical, unacceptable and a reason to impose all the appropriate sanctions to the Authors. If the same set of data needs to be reanalyzed in view of new scientific discoveries, full indexing and cross-referencing should take place.iii. Additional Information: First, Last and Corresponding Authors of the manuscript submitted with a proven case of redundant publication are held responsible for this ethical misconduct.

7) GIFT-AUTHORSHIPi. Definition: When somebody who has made little or no contribution to a research project or publication is included as an Author.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Gift-authorship is a form of serious ethical misconduct and unfortunately the most common one. It aims to increase some of the Authors’ number of contributions and therefore boost or solidify their academic careers. Sometimes, it is considered a prerequisite from a young investigator to include one or more of the senior scientists so as to publish under the auspices of a certain scientific center (authorship “bullying”). Hippokratia statement on gift-authorship is that it is unethical, unacceptable and that it should be greatly discouraged by all senior and experienced Authors.iii. Additional Information: Hippokratia journal requests upon submission of each manuscript a detailed list of Authors’ contributions, in an attempt to discourage gift-authorship. Furthermore, Hippokratia does not accept more than 10 Authors in Original Communications (unless a multi-institutional study), six Authors in Reviews/Meta-Analyses, five Authors in Case Reports and three Authors in Invited Commentaries and Letters to the Editor.

8) GHOST-AUTHORSHIPi. Definition: When somebody who deserves to be listed as an Author or Contributor on a publication is omitted.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Ghost-authorship is a form of serious ethical misconduct. It is a form of intellectual theft. It is demoralizing for young investigators. When practiced by senior Authors, it sends a message that it is ethical to do so, a fact that further spreads its deleterious effect on medical research. It should be greatly discouraged by all senior and experienced Authors. Hippokratia statement on ghost-authorship is that it is absolutely unethical, totally unacceptable and a reason to impose all the appropriate sanctions to the Authors involved.iii. Additional Information: In any proven case of ghost-authorship, Hippokratia reserves the right to report details of the misconduct to all well-established organization for publication ethics (i.e. Committee on Publication Ethics, Press Complaints Commission, World Association of Medical Editors).

9) PRIVILEGDED AUTHORSHIPi. Definition: When an Editor to publishes excessively his/her own work to his/her own journal.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Privileged authorship is a form of serious ethical misconduct. It aims to increase the Editor’s number of contributions and therefore boost her/his academic career. It derives from the fact that an Editor is in position to facilitate or even influence the peer-review process in favor of one of her/his submitted manuscripts. Hippokratia statement on privileged authorship is that it is unethical and that it should be greatly discouraged.iii. Additional Information: Manuscripts submitted to Hippokratia that include a Hippokratia Editor as an Author, undergo the standard peer-review process, however completely blinded to this specific Editor. The Editor in Chief is responsible for the proper Reviewer assignments. Furthermore, no Hippokratia Editor can publish more than two manuscripts per year to Hippokratia journal as First, Last or Corresponding Author.

10) CITATION MANIPULATIONi. Definition: a) When an Author includes excessive citations in his/her submitted manuscript, that do not contribute to the scholarly content of the article and have been included solely for the purpose of increasing his/her citations. b) When a Reviewer requests certain citations to be included in the manuscript that he/she is editing, that do not contribute to the scholarly content of the article and have been included solely for the purpose of increasing citations to the reviewer’s work or to articles published in a particular journal.ii. Hippokratia Statement: Citation manipulation either by an Author or by a Hippokratia Reviewer misrepresents the importance of both the specific manuscript and the journal in which it appears and is thus a form of scientific misconduct. It contaminates the literature. When practiced by Reviewers or Editors, it sends a message to younger investigators that it is ethical to do so, a fact that further spreads its deleterious effect on medical research and reporting. Therefore, Hippokratia statement on citation manipulation is that it is absolutely unethical, totally unacceptable and a reason to impose all the appropriate sanctions to the Authors, Reviewers and Editors involved. iii. Additional Information: a) previous work work of a name or are published at Hippokratia journal.esscientific ditional signed letter will be required fro previous work work of a name or are published at Hippokratia journal.esscientific ditional signed letter will be required froWhen any of the authors of a submitted manuscript has more than five citations of his/her previous work in the reference section, an additional signed letter will be required from him/her, stating the reasons why these references are absolutely necessary for the scientific merit of the manuscript. b) Hippokratia Reviewers are not allowed to suggest the addition in the edited manuscript of more than two certain references that either include their name or are published at Hippokratia journal and they will always have to scientifically justify their suggestions.

BASIC PRINCIPALS (CODE OF CONDUCT) FOR AUTHORS, REVIEWERS AND EDITORS

1) FOR AUTHORS:

i) The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation. ii) Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. iii) Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that others can confirm their findings. iv) Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere. v) Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work. vi) The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. vii) Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

2) FOR REVIEWERS:

i) Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.ii) Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.iii) Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.iv) Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.v) Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.vi) Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.vii) Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.viii) Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.ix) Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

3) FOR EDITORS:

i) Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish.ii) Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.iii) Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting. iv) Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.v) Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.vi) Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.vii) Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them.viii) Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest.

SANCTIONS, WHEN CODE OF CONDUCT IS NOT FOLLOWED, FOR AUTHORS, REVIEWERS AND EDITORS

1) FOR AUTHORS:

i) Immediate rejection of the manuscript.ii) Prohibition against all of the Authors for any new submissions to Hippokratia journal published either individually or in combination with other Authors of the manuscript, as well as in combination with any other Authors.iii) The prohibition shall continue for life for the first, last and corresponding author and for one year for all the other Authors, from notice of suspension.iv) Prohibition against all of the Authors from serving on the Editorial Board of Hippokratia.v) In the event that there are documented violations of the Authors’ code of conduct in any journal, regardless of whether or not the violations occurred in Hippokratia, the above sanctions will be applied.vi) In cases where the violations of the Authors’ code of conduct are found to be particularly severe or repetitive, Hippokratia reserves the right to impose additional sanctions beyond those described above.

2) FOR REVIEWERS:

If the Editorial Board of Hippokratia journal decides, either alone or after consultation with a well-established organization for publication ethics (i.e. Committee on Publication Ethics, Press Complaints Commission, World Association of Medical Editors), that a complaint against one of its Reviewers is valid, the sanctions for this Reviewer will include (but not limited to):i) Immediate removal from the Reviewers’ Database of Hippokratia journal.ii) Prohibition against the Reviewer for any new submissions to Hippokratia journal (i.e. as an Author) published either individually or in combination with other Authors of the manuscript.iii) Prohibition against the Reviewer from serving on the Editorial Board of Hippokratia.iv) In the event that there are documented violations of the Reviewers’ code of conduct in any journal, regardless of whether or not the violations occurred in Hippokratia, the above sanctions will be applied.v) In cases where the violations of the Reviwers’ code of conduct are found to be particularly severe, Hippokratia reserves the right to impose additional sanctions beyond those described above and/or report details of the misconduct to all well-established organization for publication ethics (i.e. Committee on Publication Ethics, Press Complaints Commission, World Association of Medical Editors).

3) FOR EDITORS:

If a well-established organization for publication ethics (i.e. Committee on Publication Ethics, Press Complaints Commission, World Association of Medical Editors) decides that a complaint against Hippokratia is valid, the sanctions for its Editors will include (but not limited to):i) Editor(s)/Hippokratia journal apologize(s) to complainant.ii) Editor(s)/Hippokratia journal publishe(s) a statement from therelevant organization for publication ethics in journal.Editor(s)/Hippokratia journal agree(s) to improve procedures.

News of Hippokratia Journal

Dear Reviewers of Hippokratia journal,I am delighted to inform you that from mid April 2013 our new website is online. Besides its improved aesthetic appearance, it has been designed by our new provider SlidesCenter to have increased functionali...

Dear Reviewers of Hippokratia journal,As you have probably noticed, during summer 2012 there was dysfunction of the journal’s office which caused delays in the peer review process and communication problems. This was due to the fact that Hippokr...